Tablas cruzadas

Each of the legislators interviewed for this study either chaired or served on a committee charged with higher education oversight and policy-making or a committee through which higher education is funded. Prepared interview questions differed slightly from those asked to higher education administrators and government relations

professionals, as appropriate to the role legislators play. As with the other subgroups, interviews were semi-structured, allowing the researcher to ask follow-up questions and seek points of clarification.

Interviews began with legislators describing their role in higher education funding and policy-making and how they interact with administrators and GRPs as part

of the legislative process. Participants were then asked questions about the extent to which higher education representatives impact the legislative process and the

effectiveness of higher education’s government relations efforts. Finally, legislators were asked how representatives of systems and universities might be more effective in their legislative efforts.

Legislators’ Views of Higher Education

During the interviews, legislators made numerous comments that are instructive about their viewpoints as they go about their task of making funding and policy

decisions for higher education in their respective states. Understanding that the

researcher would conduct interviews with legislators, participants from other subgroups in this study repeatedly expressed interest in what the researcher might discover. This section will examine the responses legislators provided regarding their views of higher education and those who speak on its behalf.

All legislators spoke of the importance of higher education in their state. These comments generally addressed the economic impact universities have in terms of producing graduates who become higher wage earners, as well as the economic impact on the local economies that host these institutions. One Louisiana legislator noted that economic impact is a reason higher education is such a high priority of the legislature:

Naturally, without post-secondary education I don't believe there would be economic development in Louisiana, or any state. I think they are probably the largest engine of economic development in any state…without post-secondary education I can assure you there is no state that could have a great economic development future. (15-5b)

While expressing support for universities, legislators spoke of the frustrations they have with their ongoing interactions with higher education. Areas of concern expressed by legislators included: a lack of communication between the legislature and post-secondary education; a perceived lack of openness and transparency; not enough emphasis being placed on students; disagreement about staff decisions made by chancellors and presidents; a sense of arrogance emanating from higher education representatives; and actually lobbying while proclaiming they are simply information providers. One legislator spoke of the tension that exists between higher education and the legislature but concluded that this concern is ultimately overcome by the desire of legislators to be successful in supporting universities, particularly when it benefits an institution in their district:

There is kind of a love/hate relationship over there. I think higher education is generally frustrated with the legislature because they feel like we just don't understand and basically, and I'm talking about we as a legislature, may not be the brightest bulb on the block. And there is a resentment coming back in the legislature toward higher education because we know what their arrogance is, what their attitude is. And we say, “Yeah, but you know, we know what the people want. And you are pretty out of touch.” And so there's a tension there. But the tension is offset by a desire by the legislators to bring home the bacon and gain credit for their legislative skill. (12-2d)

Not all perceived problems come from higher education representatives,

according to two respondents. One legislator expressed concern about the citizens of his state lacking an understanding about the importance of post-secondary education, while another legislator said, “I believe very strongly that in Texas there is an anti-intellectual mood that often prevails. And I believe that higher education is perceived wrongly as the fat cat.” (16-4c)

Regarding government relations professionals, one legislator spoke of the stakes and complexities involved in higher education funding and the role the GRP plays:

The trophy on the wall is always some component of higher education funding. It serves many of the political purposes that highway funding does on the federal level. So, it's a very highly politicized game that involves billions of dollars. At the end of the day, it is a very important function of state government, but there are many, many facets to it. The good governmental affairs person understands them all. (12-3a)

A couple of legislators noted the trend of university systems hiring former legislators to serve as system heads. These legislators said they could see definite advantages in hiring such individuals into these positions because of existing relationships between former colleagues. One legislator said:

So the trend toward having former legislators in key leadership positions is one that is a fascinating study, to see if that elevates the status and gets the attention of legislators who know this person. And it's not something that is happening in a smoke-filled backroom, this is just because we have a good relationship and I've known you for 10 years. “Hey, come on down, glad to talk to you.” It's just human nature in a way. (14-7b)

Interactions with Higher Education Representatives

A portion of the interviews with legislators focused on the interactions they have with higher education representatives. Participants offered differing views on the amount and type of interaction they need to have with chancellors, presidents, and GRPs. Some of the variance in responses seemed attributable to the particular legislator’s role in the legislature, namely, serving on an appropriating committee or a higher education policy committee. Two responses illustrate differing viewpoints. One member who served on a committee with policy oversight expressed a desire to hear from higher education representatives about their priorities during the upcoming legislative session this way, “I

don't want to micromanage their internal issues. I want them to come to us with their priorities and especially this next session when we are talking about having to cut programs.” (14-9a) Conversely, an appropriator discussed a willingness to listen to all institutions requests but noted the limited benefits of trying to take in huge amounts of information:

After a while it just becomes a big blur. It's, “we do a wonderful job for (the state)…but we really need some more money.” Occasionally there will be some insight or some comment that affects our decisions, but not usually. (12-3d) The same legislator noted, “Our decisions are constrained much more (by) how much money do I have to spend, and how do I dole it out to get the votes to get this out of committee.” (12-3d)

Legislators spoke of the ongoing interaction they have with higher education, both during and between legislative sessions, when many visit universities around their state. Respondents spoke of the need to maintain good communications between higher education and the legislature. Most spoke of positive lines of communications existing between the two. However, one legislative leader stated:

I think the legislature is reaching out, trying to embrace post-secondary education and understand it better. And certainly I would hope that post-secondary

education in (the state) embraces that willingness of the legislature. (10-7C) Based on previous experiences that he did not elaborate on, this legislator believed there had been lack of communication between the legislature and higher education.

In discussing their interactions with administrators and GRPs, legislators with less seniority tended to speak more about the lines of communication they have with

GRPs, while more tenured members spoke of their working relationships with chancellors and presidents. One more junior member said:

On the question of the government relations people, I think the most important thing about their role is that they are very accessible to us. The university presidents and chancellors certainly are as well, but they have very busy

schedules, and I respect that and sometimes it's more efficient just to talk to the government relations person and get a quick answer to something that the president doesn't need to be bothered. (14-5b)

This viewpoint is in sharp contrast to the statement of a senior legislative leader regarding

the role of GRPs:

They want me to talk to them…it doesn't happen in my office. I speak to the president, I speak to the chancellor, I speak to the regents. They are my friends…We need a direct relationship, and that's key…(16-5c)

Part of the difference in attitude is perhaps best explained by another senior member:

The one advantage that I have, my relationship with government affairs officials has changed over the years. My dependence on them was much greater in my early career because: a) I didn't know; and b) I didn’t have the power to do whatever I wanted to do. But now, I just want them to be honest with me. And let me know if there is anything I'm doing that's causing some unintended

consequence that I don't know about. (12-5c)

Responding to a question on how higher education representatives can be successful in their government relations, a legislator answered:

Certainly, on the negative end, you want to make sure that nothing is done that creates some barrier with a legislator. I think having the relationship that you know you have an open door with a legislator, that they are receptive to you, make sure that either they or their staff are willing to hear the information, and take the information that you want them to have. (15-4b)

Impacting the Process

The researcher visited with legislators about the efforts of higher education to impact the legislative process and whether such activities had an effect. All respondents

agreed that higher education’s government relations efforts did impact the process. One legislator noted higher education’s broad geographic constituency as a source of their effectiveness:

I think it's a huge impact. I think they probably have, I guess, the largest lobbying force in this state. I mean, if you think about that, you see each region of our state is certainly represented well by post-secondary education of some type. So I feel like they have a huge impact on the legislature. (10-3C)

Another legislator noted that a good GRP can play an important role related to funding:

The governmental affairs guys, besides providing the eyes and ears for the board and the leadership, can affect several millions of dollars’ worth of funding if they are just in the right place at the right time. And that's why they get paid so well.

(12-2c)

Several legislators discussed the efforts put forth by the university systems in their respective states, noting the largest system tends to drive the higher education debate and is more proactive than the other systems. One legislator said this when asked about how active systems are in the process:

Well, it depends, it depends on the school. Most(ly) reactive, with the exception of the (state’s largest system). (They are) usually proactive, and though they will deny it, usually they're running a fairly ambitious legislative program. There is not a more powerful political entity in the entire state…than the (largest system).

They have played the game for a long time. They have played it very well.

Generally the legislature does whatever they want…they are significantly different than everybody else. Everybody else is a lot more passive, a lot more reactive. They are very aggressive, very proactive. (12-2a, 12-2b)

Another legislator echoed these sentiments:

The (largest system is) always at the forefront of legislative issues…so I believe that in the higher education community it's the (largest system) that is the leader in terms of influencing the legislature, and in terms of government relations

efforts. (16-3b)

Legislators also mentioned that university systems help build their government relations offices by hiring talented staff members away from the legislature.

Effectiveness

Beyond asking if higher education impacts the legislative process, the researcher explored members’ views on the effectiveness of higher education representatives’

actions to influence the process and how systems might measure their effectiveness.

Responders believed higher education’s efforts are effective overall but noted that the most effective thing is to do a good job of performing their educational mission. Most also agreed that it is difficult to measure overall effectiveness because success is relative.

When asked about measuring success, one legislator noted:

It's a real intangible out there. It's very hard to do an accounting equation on it and say, “Here are the debits, here are the credits, and here's the equity.” It's so much more subtle than that. The only thing you can say for sure is that higher education funding would probably look a lot different if they weren’t over there.

They do move this effort in directions that generally favor their schools over what, if the legislature left to their own devices, would do if you just locked us in a room and said, “Go write a budget for higher education.” I don't know if you could put a reliable number on it…it’s hard to do. It’s like a lot of things; you know it when you see it. In a legislative session, results are always relativistic.

(12-3b,12-4c)

Legislators noted appropriations are the most important measurement of success. As one legislator responded when asked how systems might measure success, “Funding,

funding, funding. It's all about funding.” (16-4c)

Responses specifically related to the effectiveness of administrators and GRPs reflected on the individual’s credibility, likeability, trustworthiness, and ability to get a message across. One legislator noted the importance that relationships play in the process:

Some presidents are more effective than others. Some chancellors are more effective than others, and same thing for regents. And it's not only a difference in how effective they are but also in their personalities and how likable they are.

And there are many who are very well respected and very well-liked and they develop friendships and there are others who are more arms distance and don't get involved. (16-2d)

Another legislator offered this view about other important components of effectiveness:

The biggest thing really is credibility and trust, and making sure that I'm not steered. If someone steered me in a direction that doesn't turn out to be what they expressed that it was, I would have a hard time having any trust with that person and doing anything they suggested in the future. That's just a no-brainer. And to make sure the information I need is given to me in a way that I know it's going to be accurate and that I am not going down some rabbit hole and get caught up in a corner (because I) had been given something that's not really supposed to be.

That's the best way I can say that. (15-4b) Improving Effectiveness

At the end of each interview, legislators were asked how university administrators might be more effective in working with members and staff of the legislature. Responses to this question fell into three basic categories: 1) activities and practices administrators should utilize; 2) areas in which administrators should do a better job, and; 3) actions administrators should not engage in. This section will provide a summation of each of these categories.

Suggested Activities and Practices

Legislators expressed strong desire for administrators to speak with one voice about the needs of higher education statewide and avoid concentrating their arguments on what might be best for their particular institution or system. Legislators expressed an understanding that it is the job of administrators and GRPs to represent their university or system but, as one legislator indicated, higher education has been encouraged to take

a holistic view of what is best for students statewide, as opposed to a particular university setting. However, he noted the challenge involved:

That's quite a shift from the protectionism that we've all seen through the years, and I understand that. I do not blame anyone for that but I think it's had a negative impact on the state as a whole. (10-6b)

Another legislator articulated this viewpoint about what is a very effective approach for higher education officials:

I think what is valuable to me is when an administrator sees the big picture, and recognizes all the different ways that we’re coming to the table here, and tries to provide the necessary information that will help us in working with all those different folks, rather than thinking that everybody is to look at it the same way, or falling back on just saying what a great investment it is, because I know that, you don't have to tell me that. Helping to frame it in such a way that allows us to really demonstrate things that shows we really need to stay invested here, that is willing to be proactive about what their relationship is with government and not being in position of always just coming as if you're asking for something. But rather, “this is what we are doing, and this is how we want to work together, and this is what we are going to do to make that happen,” as opposed to just asking us to do it. (15-6b)

Being more specific about how the head of university should spend time in order to be most effective and efficient, one legislative leader related the advice he had shared with a new university president about spending time at the state capitol, being concise in legislative requests, and using GRPs:

I said, “Look, you are a brand new president. You have a lot to do. I tell you what; I need to see you twice. Don't be over there (the capitol) all the time. I will see you early in the session and you tell me what you need and then come over the end of the session and I'm going to tell you what you are going to get. Now, the rest of the time just get over there and run your school.” That's pretty blunt, and that may not be all true. But, it's also true that a president that spends too much time in (the capital city) and too little time back running their school is not probably using their time effectively. There is an art to it. More face time is not necessarily better face time…the way presidents can be more effective, is to be able to focus the legislator’s mind on what is really critically important and do it in such a way that it is easy to remember…where the government affairs officer

comes in, I think if they really got their head to the ground, they will know when it's time to bring in basically the big guns and when it's not. And coming over there too much is counterproductive. Being over there in the legislature for 141 days is like drinking water out of a firehouse. The last thing you need is another meeting. (12-6c)

Legislators also reported benefitting from being invited to visit campuses and see firsthand what universities are trying to accomplish. Involving students during these visits, as well as involving them generally was reported as being very effective. As one

Legislators also reported benefitting from being invited to visit campuses and see firsthand what universities are trying to accomplish. Involving students during these visits, as well as involving them generally was reported as being very effective. As one